TO DETERMINE the safety distances for electromagnetic

Transcription

1 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY, VOL. 47, NO. 4, NOVEMBER Comparison of Safety Distances Based on the Electromagnetic Field and Based on the SAR for Occupational Exposure of a 900-MHz Base Station Antenna Wout Joseph and Luc Martens, Member, IEEE Abstract A comparison between the safety distances of a base station antenna using electromagnetic field and the specific absorption rate (SAR) assessment is made. The input power in the antenna is determined such that the electromagnetic fields and the SAR equal the reference levels and the basic restrictions, respectively, at a certain distance. Up to about 10 W the localized SAR delivers the largest safety distances when the electric field averaged in a volume is considered. This means that from 10 W and up the SAR does not need to be determined to obtain the largest safety distances. Safety distances based on the SAR will be smaller than those obtained from the electromagnetic fields when the maximum field value in a plane is considered. Index Terms Base station antenna, electromagnetic field, measurement, occupational exposure, rectangular box phantom, safety distance, specific absorption rate (SAR), time-domain filtering. I. INTRODUCTION TO DETERMINE the safety distances for electromagnetic occupational exposure of a base station antenna, two routes can be followed. The electromagnetic fields around the base station antenna can be determined and compared to the reference levels [1], and, on the other hand, the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR [W/kg]) can be determined and compared to the basic restrictions [1]. The objective of this paper is the comparison of both routes for a typical base station antenna using simulations and measurements. SAR assessment is expensive and very time-consuming; hence, it is our objective to determine the power of the base station antenna for which electromagnetic field assessment will deliver the most restrictive safety distance and thus when it is no longer necessary to determine the SAR. A method to compare both routes will be developed using a theoretical study and simulations. The theoretical study will be experimentally validated. To this end, a measurement system is required that will enable accurate field determination and an accurate SAR evaluation close to a base station antenna. Then we will be able to compare the fields and SAR with their corresponding reference levels and basic restrictions, respectively, and be able to make a comparison of their safety distances in the near field of the antenna. It is thus important to be able Manuscript received November 29, 2004; revised May 17, This work was supported by the Belgian Science Policy under the Standardization Programmes. The authors are with the Department of Information Technology, Ghent University, B-9050 Gent, Belgium ( wout.joseph@intec.ugent.be). Digital Object Identifier /TEMC to perform accurate electromagnetic field measurements close to the source. Both the electric and magnetic field have to be determined when performing measurements in the near field of the base station [1], [2]. The measurements described here are planar near-field measurements performed in an indoor open site surrounded by absorbers to minimize interference. We use the method developed in [3] to obtain accurate results. To compare the safety distances based on the electromagnetic fields and on the SAR, the SAR (localized and whole-body) has to be assessed. Both an experimental setup and numerical modelling will be used for the SAR assessment. For the SAR evaluation, a homogeneous rectangular box phantom proposed by CENELEC [2] will be used. The reasoning for this type of phantom will be explained in Section II-A2. When the phantom used for the SAR assessment is positioned close to the base station antenna, part of the power will be reflected back into the antenna, depending on the distance of the phantom from the antenna. This effect will be discussed in Section III-B3. In Section II, the developed method to compare the safety distances based on the electromagnetic fields and SAR is described and applied to a real case. The experimental validation of the electromagnetic field assessment and SAR assessment is discussed in Section III. Finally, the conclusions are presented in Section IV. II. THEORETICAL STUDY In this section, we compare theoretically the safety distances based on the electromagnetic fields with the safety distances of the SAR. The method we use for the comparison will also be explained. The safety distances are investigated before the actual placement of the base station antenna in the field. Therefore an investigation in free space is performed. A. Method We investigate a Kathrein GSM base station antenna in free space at MHz. At this frequency, the antenna radiates maximally. Fig. 1 shows the antenna a typical base station antenna and the coordinate system we used. We determine the safety distance in front of the antenna because this distance will be largest in comparison to the other safety distances (up, down, side, rear) for this case. This safety distance, noted as Dfront X (X = E, the electric field, or H, the magnetic field) for the electromagnetic fields and noted as Dfront SAR for the SAR, defines the distance outside which the field and the SAR levels do /$ IEEE

2 978 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY, VOL. 47, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2005 Fig. 1. Configuration, layout, and dimensions of the base station and rectangular box phantom. not exceed the reference value and the basic restriction, respectively, in front of the antenna. Our objective is to compare both safety distances and to determine the input power of the base station for which electromagnetic field assessment will deliver the highest safety distances. The method we use consists of the following steps: the determination of the safety distances of the electromagnetic fields, the determination of the safety distances of the SAR, and, finally, a comparison of both safety distances as a function of the power of the base station. 1) Safety Distances Based on the Electromagnetic Fields: To determine the compliance boundaries of both the electric and the magnetic field, spatial averaging is necessary [1], [2]. We determine the safety distances for three field quantities: the maximum field (worst-case situation) values X max (X = E or H) in xy planes in front of the antenna; X plane, the field value averaged in xy planes with dimensions cm 2 [2]; and X vol, the field value averaged in a volume of cm 3 [2]. The dimensions of the volume used for averaging are intended to obtain spatially averaged values over the trunk of a human body. The volume is somewhat smaller than the trunk of a human body to assure that the basic restrictions are not exceeded due to the averaging. Fig. 2 shows how these values are determined. We then determine the safety distances Dfront X (X = E or H) by comparing the three obtained field values X max,x plane, and X vol (X = E or H) with the reference levels of the electric and magnetic field for varying input powers. We will follow the ICNIRP guidelines [1]. The reference levels for the electric and magnetic field for occupational exposure at MHz (the investigated frequency) are, respectively, V/m and 0.25 A/m [1]. 2) Safety Distances Based on the SAR: The localized and the whole-body SAR will be investigated. The SAR can not be practically determined in a realistic inhomogeneous model of a human. Assessment of the SAR requires technically advanced equipment, stable setups, and procedures to reduce the uncertainty of the result. Therefore, homogeneous phantoms representing the human body have been proposed for experimental SAR assessment (CENELEC [2], IEEE [4]). The phantom we use is a rectangular box phantom recommended by CENELEC standard EN50383 [2] (IEEE standard 1528 [4] also mentions a flat phantom) with dimensions cm 3. The configuration for the SAR assessment is shown in Fig. 1. The size of the box phantom [2] has been chosen to correspond to the average trunk of an adult man (the basic restrictions for the limbs are less restrictive than those for the head and trunk, i.e., for ICNIRP [1] 2 times less restrictive, for FCC [5] more than 2.5 times less restrictive due to averaging over 10 g in contrast to the 1-g average for head and trunk). CENELEC specifies that the dielectric properties of the liquid filling the phantom have a relative permittivity ɛ =42.1and a conductivity σ =1.01 S/m at MHz. The density ρ is 1000 kg/m 3. Because sharp edges can cause field modifications, the edges are rounded with a radius of 7 cm. But because a homogeneous phantom model may result in lower SAR values than a heterogeneous and anatomically realistic model [6], [7], the measured SAR is multiplied by a correction number [2]. This assures a conservative (i.e., giving a higher SAR) method for the determination of the SAR. CENELEC proposes in standard EN50383 [2] an arbitrary correction factor of 2 for a rectangular box phantom. By determination of the whole-body SAR in an anatomically realistic model for plane-wave excitation and comparing it to the wholebody SAR in homogeneous phantoms, we have determined a new correction factor in [6]. This correction factor is frequency and phantom dependent, and for the rectangular box phantom at MHz equal to 3 instead of 2. In the following, we will thus multiply the obtained SAR values with a correction factor 3 at MHz (at other frequencies a different correction factor must thus be used). Finally, we determine the safety distances Dfront SAR by comparing the SAR values with the basic restrictions for varying input powers. The ICNIRP basic restriction for occupational exposure at MHz is 10 W/kg for the localized SAR and 0.4 W/kg for the whole-body SAR [1]. 3) Comparison: To compare the safety distances using electromagnetic fields and using the SAR, we determine [m] for varying input powers of the base station: =Dfront X Dfront, SAR with X = E or H. (1) enables us to determine the input power from which the electromagnetic fields will deliver the largest safety distances (when > 0). B. Simulations We now will apply the method using FDTD-simulations (with SEMCAD and [8]) to calculate the electromagnetic fields and the SAR in front of the K antenna. The size of the FDTD cell varies from 1 mm to 1 cm away from the antenna. We used a hard E-field source model applying 1 V/m in the gap of

3 JOSEPH AND MARTENS: A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE SAFETY DISTANCES OF A BASE STATION ANTENNA 979 Fig. 2. (a) Area over which spatial averaging in a plane is performed with the maximal measured value in the center and (b) area over which spatial averaging in a volume is performed. the different dipoles of the base station antenna. Because the base station antenna is an electric source, the electric field is dominant [3], [9]. Therefore, we will consider in the following only the electric field. Simulations and measurements of the magnetic field are also performed in [3]. We will first compare the safety distances of the electric fields using averaging in a volume with the safety distances of the localized SAR for realistic input powers (up to 30 W, a high input power). This will lead to the most restrictive condition (averaging in a volume delivers lower values than averaging in a plane or considering the maximal field value in a plane) to determine the input power from which the field values deliver the largest safety distances [9]. Second, a worst-case situation will be investigated using the maximum field values, a method which is less realistic than volume averaging but delivers the highest safety distances for the electric field. In Section III, we will discuss the safety distances based on averaging of the field in a plane as well. First, electromagnetic field simulations are performed from 1 mm to 40 cm from the antenna without the rectangular box phantom present. E vol is then simulated from 1 mm to 20 cm (averaging volume of cm 3 ). For each distance from the antenna, the input power is determined such that E vol is equal to the reference level. For this power, the distance is equal to Dfront E. In this way, we make a figure of DE front as a function of the input power (Fig. 3). Next, SAR simulations are performed with the rectangular box phantom positioned 1 mm to 20 cm from the antenna. We use cubic spline interpolation to determine the SAR values at intermediate distances. We now can apply the same procedure for the SAR. For each distance, we calculate the input powers (considered up to 30 W) such that the whole-body SAR and localized SAR equal the respective basic restrictions. The localized SAR resulted in the lowest power. For a constant power (up to 30 W), the localized SAR thus delivers the largest safety distance and will therefore be considered in the comparison with safety distances derived from the electric field. Fig. 4 shows as a function of the input power. Dfront SAR Finally, is obtained using (1). Fig. 5 shows as a function of the input power. equals zero at 10.2 W (Dfront E = DSAR front ). Using the input power of 10.2 W shown in Figs. 3 or 4 results in a safety distance of 1.9 cm. Thus from 10.2 W and up ( 0) the safety distances derived from the assessment of the electric fields will deliver (for the investigated configuration and for Fig. 3. front as function of the input power to the base station (volume averaged electric field). D E vol simulations) larger distances than the ones obtained by SAR assessment. The reference levels for the electromagnetic fields are defined such that they are stricter than the basic restrictions [1]. This paper shows that this is true except for very small distances (about 2 cm or smaller) from the base station antenna. At such small distances, the phantom is in the reactive field, which is very different from the radiative field. We can also determine by comparing the safety distance derived from the maximum field value E max (worst case) with the safety distance derived from the localized SAR. We apply the same method as discussed above. Fig. 6 shows =D E max front DSAR front as a function of the input power to the base station using the maximum field values E max.fig.6shows that is always larger than zero for the investigated positions of the configuration. Thus when considering the maximum field value in xy planes, the safety distances derived from the assessment of the electric fields are always larger than the ones from the SAR. III. EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION OF SAFETY DISTANCES We now experimentally validate our findings of Section II. We apply the experimental procedure to the Kathrein GSM

4 980 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY, VOL. 47, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2005 Fig. 4. Dfront SAR as function of the input power to the base station. Fig. 6. as function of the input power to the base station comparing D E max front and Dfront SAR. Fig. 5. as function of the input power to the base station ( = D E vol front Dfront SAR ). base station antenna operating at MHz. Measurements are compared with FDTD simulations. A. Electric Field 1) Configuration: The measurements are performed with a network analyzer (Rohde & Schwarz ZVR). Thus, we consider the combination of the base station antenna (see Fig. 1) and the measurement probe as a two-port network. We use a robot with an accuracy of mm to position the probe. The measurements are performed with a spatial grid of 2 cm, smaller than λ/10 = 3.2 cm at MHz. By rotation of the measurement probe, three orthogonal components of the field at each position are measured. A selection of measurement probes is made with a disturbance required to be lower than 5% for nearfield exposure measurements around the base station [10]. For electric-field measurements, a 2.2-cm dipole with a conductor thickness of 0.5 mm has been selected. The measurement probe is calibrated using a three-antenna method [11] [14]. The antenna factor (AF) of the 2.2-cm dipole is db(1/m). This value is relatively high (lower sensitivity) due to the small dimensions of the measurement probes. These small dimensions of the antenna are required for a satisfying spatial resolution and for a disturbance that is lower than 5%. 2) Measurement Method: We have developed an accurate low-cost method for near-field assessment in [3]. When the S 21 -parameters are measured for three orthogonal components, the total field can be derived. But because of the non-anechoic property of the measurement site, we have to take into account residual reflections. To this end, we perform a de-embedding step [3] using the inverse fast Fourier transform (FFT) and a time-domain gating technique [15] to eliminate these residual reflections. The reflections due to the presence of the robot (covered with absorbing material) are also reduced using this technique. For each orthogonal component of the field at each measurement position, we perform a measurement from 300 khz up to 4 GHz. We use this large frequency range of f = GHz to obtain enough resolution in the time domain to distinguish the direct and reflected beams. After taking the inverse FFT, we apply a time-domain gating technique by suppressing the reflections with a tenth-order Butterworth digital bandpass filter. This type of filter is selected because of its flat passband and the absence of side lobes. After filtering, we take the FFT, and the total field is then calculated with the gated S 21 -parameter. The measurements are performed from 2 to 40 cm from the antenna. E vol is then determined from 2 to 20 cm (averaging volume of cm 3 ). We use cubic spline interpolation to determine the field values for spatial steps smaller than 2 cm. 3) Results: Fig. 7 compares FDTD simulations and measurements of the electric field for the configuration of Fig. 1 (1-W input power) using the technique we developed in [3]. An excellent agreement between measurements and simulations is

5 JOSEPH AND MARTENS: A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE SAFETY DISTANCES OF A BASE STATION ANTENNA 981 TABLE II COMPARISON OF SIMULATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS OF THE SAFETY DISTANCES D front USING THE ELECTRIC FIELD FOR DIFFERENT INPUT POWERS P in AT MHz Fig. 7. Comparison of measurements and simulations of E max,e plane,and E vol at 1-W input power. TABLE I RELATIVE DEVIATION OF MEASUREMENTS AND SIMULATIONS OF THE ELECTRICAL FIELD WITH AND WITHOUT DE-EMBEDDING AT MHz Fig. 8. SAR measurement configuration. obtained. Table I shows the maximal and average deviations with and without de-embedding of the quantities of Fig. 7. These are all very small deviations (after de-embedding) compared to measurement uncertainties published in the literature [16], [17]. The values of the safety distance D front based on the electric field are shown in Table II for different input powers. 5 W, 10 W, and 30 W are, respectively, a low, a typical, and a high input power. Again the deviation between measurements and simulations is small. The deviations for the maximal field values are the largest but still very small compared to other results described in the literature [16] [19]. Deviations between measurements and simulations are caused by the measurement probe (antenna calibration, influence of the measurement probe itself), positional errors, and the imperfect model of the antenna used for the simulations. B. SAR Measurements The localized SAR will be investigated because the localized SAR delivers larger safety distances than the whole-body SAR (see Section II-B) [2]. 1) Configuration: The measurement configuration is shown in Fig. 8. The phantom is a rectangular box phantom recommended by CENELEC [2] with dimensions cm 3 TABLE III DIELECTRIC PARAMETERS (ɛ r = RELATIVE PERMITTIVITY, σ = CONDUCTIVITY) OF THE LIQUID THAT SIMULATES HUMAN TISSUES (see Fig. 1). We position the rectangular box phantom at distances 1 mm to 20 cm from the K antenna. We use a robot with an accuracy of mm for the positioning of the measurement probe. To minimize the reflections of the environment, we surround the measurement setup with absorbers. We use a SAR probe of the type ESD3DV1, delivered and calibrated for the DASY3 system of Schmid & Partner Engineering AG [20]. The K antenna is driven by a Rohde & Schwarz signal generator (SMP 22). Cable losses are taken into account for the input power determination. The thickness of the phantom shell is 10 ± 1 mm. The dielectric properties of the liquid that simulates the human tissues are shown in Table III. They are measured using an HP85070A dielectric probe kit with an HP8753D network analyzer. The liquid has a density ρ = 1000 kg/m 3. 2) Method: We describe the method to determine the localized SAR in a 10-g cube [1]. A 10-g cube has an edge of 2.15 cm

6 982 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY, VOL. 47, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2005 Fig. 9. SAR-distribution in xy plane (at 5 mm from inner surface of the phantom) and zoom-in for the determination of the location of the maximal SAR when the phantom is positioned 1 mm from the antenna. in the investigated liquid. Using FDTD simulations we get an indication of the location of the maximal SAR. For each position of the antenna between 1 mm and 20 cm of the phantom, we make an xy SAR-scan at 5 mm from the inner surface of the phantom. The spatial grid of this first scan is 5 mm. Then we zoom into the zone of maximal SAR, and we perform a measurement of 2 2cm 2 with a spatial grid size of 1 mm. This zoom-in is also made for local maxima with SAR values within 2 db of the maximum value that are not within the primary zoom with the maximum peak SAR [21], [22]. Fig. 9 shows the determination of the location of the maximal SAR when the antenna is positioned at 1 mm from the phantom. Next, we measure in a volume of cm 3 with the maximal peak SAR (also for local maximum within 2 db) in the center of the xy dimension of this volume, and we search the 10-g cube in this volume with maximal averaged SAR. In the xy plane, the spacing between the points is 4.30 mm, while in the z plane it is 0.25 mm. This results in a 10-g cube of measurement points. This small spacing in the z direction is necessary due to the fast variation of the SAR in this direction and because more points are needed for a better extrapolation. The distance of the probe tip to the sensor is 2.7 mm. Therefore, no measurements are possible at the inner surface of the phantom, and it is necessary to use an extrapolation routine to extend the measured SAR distribution to the inner surface of the phantom. We use an exponential extrapolation least mean square error method for the extrapolation of the SAR values [23]. It is shown in [21] and [22] that an exponential decay for the SAR close to the surface is a good assumption. 3) Reflections Back to the Base Station Antenna: When the rectangular box phantom is positioned close to the base station antenna, part of the power will be reflected back into the antenna, depending on the distance of the phantom from the antenna. The radiated power will thus vary due to the change of the reflection coefficient at the input of the antenna. For the simulations, we used the FDTD method to calculate the coupled antenna-phantom problem (radiated power, power absorbed and reflected by the box phantom, and current distributions on the antenna elements can be determined with FDTD). For the measurements, we determined S 11 using a Rohde & Schwarz ZVR network analyzer before each SAR measurement at the different investigated distances between phantom and base station antenna. With S 11 we can determine the radiated power from the antenna. Using a PMM8053-EP330 broadband probe with a frequency range of 100 khz 3 GHz, we monitor the fields near several antenna elements. In this way, we can observe if, during the SAR measurement at a certain distance from the antennaphantom, the phantom and the robot used for the scanning of the SAR disturb the antenna radiation in different ways. The robot is covered with an absorbing material to minimize reflections. A negligible variation of the fields of the monitored antenna elements during the SAR measurements was observed. The variation of the reflected and radiated power at different distances antenna-phantom can be observed using the S 11 measurement. Fig. 10 shows 1 S 11 2 as function of the distance from the source. Without the phantom, 1 S 11 2 is almost 1. The antenna is thus well designed. This figure shows that the radiated and reflected power depend upon the distance antennaphantom. Fig. 10 shows that the influence of the reflected power due to the presence of the phantom is maximal at 5.6 cm. At this distance the influence is about 8%. The entire antenna and also the outer dipoles are influenced by the proximity of the phantom at 5.6 cm, while for smaller distances only the central dipoles are mainly influenced by the presence of the box phantom. For

7 JOSEPH AND MARTENS: A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE SAFETY DISTANCES OF A BASE STATION ANTENNA 983 Fig S 11 2 as function of the distance from the source at MHz. larger distances (>5.6 cm), the influence of the phantom reduces again (1 S 11 2 increases). For distances above about 16 cm ( λ/2 at MHz), the influence is smaller than about 1%. Fig. 10 shows that the influence of the proximity of the phantom on the radiated power at the investigated distances is relatively small (maximal at 5.6 cm and smaller than 10%). We take this influence due to the presence of the rectangular box phantom into account on the input power. 4) Results: The measurements are compared with FDTD simulations of the K antenna using the configuration of Fig. 8 with the shell of the phantom included. The measurements and simulations are performed from 1 mm to 20 cm from the antenna. We use cubic spline interpolation to determine the SAR values at intermediate points. Fig. 11 shows the measured and the simulated localized SAR values averaged over 10 g and normalized for 1-W input power. The error bars are calculated from the uncertainties of the experimental values [20]. There is a very good agreement between measurements and simulations. Table IV compares the localized SAR values (from 11 mm and up due to the thickness of the phantom shell). The relative deviation between measurements and simulations is also shown. We define the relative deviation as follows: Relative deviation[%] = 100 SAR 10 meas g SAR 10 g sim ( ) min SAR 10 g. meas, SAR 10 g sim (2) This relative deviation is thus the maximum deviation between measurements and simulations. The deviations mentioned here are generally within 10% of the FDTD calculated results. These deviations are smaller than or comparable to those reported in [16] and [24]. The safety distances Dfront SAR for different input powers using the localized SAR are shown in Table V (from 1.1 cm and up due to the thickness of the phantom shell). Also, the safety distances for the localized SAR multiplied with a correction factor 3 are listed in this table [6]. Fig. 11. Comparison of measurements and simulations of the localized SAR (averaged over 10 g) normalized to 1 W input power for different distances from the antenna. TABLE IV COMPARISON BETWEEN MEASURED AND SIMULATED LOCALIZED SAR (10 g) NORMALIZED AT 1-W INPUTPOWER FOR DIFFERENTSEPARATIONS ANTENNA-LIQUID AT MHz C. Comparison of Simulated and Measured Safety Distances We multiply again the simulated and measured localized SAR with a correction factor 3 [6] instead of 2 proposed by CENELEC [2]. In Table VI, we compare the safety distances at 10- and 20-W input power at MHz. This table shows that the safety distances determined using the electric field assessment are more restrictive than the safety distances using the SAR when the maximum field value is determined or when averaging in a plane is used for both simulations and measurements. It is possible that averaging in a volume does not deliver the most restrictive safety distance and thus results in an underestimation

8 984 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY, VOL. 47, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2005 TABLE V COMPARISON OF MEASUREMENTS AND SIMULATIONS OF THE SAFETY DISTANCES D front USING THE LOCALIZED SAR (10 g) FOR DIFFERENT INPUT POWERS P in AT MHz TABLE VI SAFETY DISTANCES D front BASED ON THE ELECTRIC FIELD AND ON THE SAR USING THERECTANGULARBOX PHANTOM AT 10- AND 20-W INPUTPOWER AT MHz smaller, etc... [25]. The simulations and measurements of the SAR and the fields of the typical K antenna will be comparable for other antennas using dipole arrays in this frequency band. For the 1800-MHz band, we should also perform this study for a typical antenna to generalize it to all the GSM frequencies. The lengths of the individual dipoles are of course different for 1800-MHz antennas. The near-field values will be somewhat higher for the 1800-MHz antennas. On the other hand, the reference levels are higher around 1800 MHz than at 900 MHz [1]. The SAR at 1800 MHz may be higher due to the fact that the conductivity of muscle, for example, is higher at 1800 MHz than at 900 MHz. The conclusion of the antenna input power of about 10 W may be of the same order, but, to validate this, an additional study for an 1800-MHz antenna is needed. To this end, we need to investigate the internal structure of the antenna and perform new simulations and measurements. A study for an 1800-MHz antenna is left for future investigation. with respect to the safety distance based on the localized SAR. Table VI also shows that the basic restriction of the whole-body SAR is not exceeded for the considered positions at 10- and 20-W input power. To make a more thorough comparison, we determine as defined in Section II-A for measurements and simulations. We compare the safety distances based on the electric field using averaging in a volume with the safety distances based on the localized SAR [9]. Comparing these quantities leads to the most restrictive condition to determine the distance from which the field values deliver the largest safety distances [9]. Figs. 3 5 show Dfront E,DSAR front, and as functions of the input power up to 30 W. A very good agreement between measurements and simulations is obtained. Fig. 5 shows that equals zero at 10.2 W (simulations) and at 10.8 W (measurements). These input powers are indicated on Figs. 3 and 4. From this power and up, the safety distances using the electric field are larger than the safety distances using the localized SAR. It is then not necessary to determine the localized or whole-body SAR. For larger input powers, the electric field will deliver higher safety distances than the SAR. This results in a safety distance of 1.9 cm (simulations) and 2.2 cm (measurements) using Fig. 3 or 4. These distances are smaller than λ/10 at MHz. D. Other Base Station Antennas Most base station antennas in the 900-MHz frequency band use arrays of dipoles of about 15 cm (λ/2) in combination with a metal plate at the back side of the antenna. Other antennas have a tilt angle, use more or less dipoles, are larger or IV. CONCLUSION In this paper, we compared two routes to obtain the safety distances for electromagnetic occupational exposure: the safety distances based on the electromagnetic fields and the safety distances based on the SAR. Measurements and FDTD simulations of the field close to a K antenna at MHz are compared using a new low-cost measurement technique, and excellent agreement between measurements and simulations is reported. Also, measurements and FDTD simulations of the SAR in a rectangular box phantom are performed and good agreement is reported. The input power of the base station antenna is determined such that the electromagnetic fields and the SAR equal the reference levels and the basic restrictions, respectively. From 10.2 W (simulations) or 10.8 W (measurements) and up, the safety distances of the electric field averaged in a volume are larger than the safety distances of the localized SAR. These powers correspond to a safety distance of 1.9 cm (simulations) and 2.2 cm (measurements). Thus, from these input powers and up, both the localized and whole-body SAR do not need to be determined to obtain the largest safety distances for the investigated configuration. This results in a time-saving and low-cost procedure because SAR assessment is expensive, time-consuming and nearly impossible to execute on a base station installed in the field. The reference levels for the electromagnetic fields are defined such that they are stricter than the basic restrictions [1]. This paper shows that this is true except for very small distances (about 2 cm or smaller) from the base station antenna. At such small distances, the human body is in the reactive field, which is very different from the radiative field. The conclusions of this paper are representative for antennas radiating in the 900-MHz frequency band. For 1800 MHz, an additional investigation on a typical antenna is required. This will be done in future research.

9 JOSEPH AND MARTENS: A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE SAFETY DISTANCES OF A BASE STATION ANTENNA 985 REFERENCES [1] Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz), Health Physics, vol. 74, no. 4, pp , Apr [2] European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC) EN50383, Basic Standard for the Calculation and Measurement of Electromagnetic Field Strength and SAR Related to Human Exposure from Radio Base Stations and Fixed Terminal Stations for Wireless Telecommunication Systems (110 MHz 40 GHz), [3] W. Joseph, L. Verloock, and L. Martens, An accurate low-cost measurement technique for occupational exposure assessment of base station antennas, Electron. Lett., vol. 39, no. 12, pp , Jun [4] IEEE Recommended Practice for Determining the Peak Spatial-Average Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) in the Human Head from Wireless Communications Devices: Measurement Techniques [Online]. IEEE Std , [5] Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Washington, DC, Tech. Rep. Suppl. C to OET Bulletin 65, Jun [6] W. Joseph and L. Martens, Safety factor for the determination of occupational exposure by SAR in phantom model, Electron. Lett., vol. 39, no. 23, pp , Nov [7] L. Hamberg, N. Lovenhagen, M. Siegbahn, and C. Tornevik, A method for determination of RF exposure compliance for pico cell base stations by SAR measurements in a flat phantom, in Proc. IEEE Int. AP-S Symp., vol. 2, Columbus, OH, Jun. 2003, pp [8] J. De Moerloose and D. De Zutter, Surface integral representation radiation boundary condition for the FDTD method, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 41, no. 7, pp , Jul [9] W. Joseph and L. Martens, Comparison of compliance boundaries for occupational exposure of a base station antenna using electromagnetic field and SAR assessment, in Proc. 25th Ann. Meeting Bioelectromagnetics Soc., Jun. 2003, pp [10], The influence of the measurement probe on the evaluation of electromagnetic fields, in Proc. IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 43, no. 2, May 2003, pp [11] J. A. A. Smith, Standard-site method for determining antenna factors, IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. EMC-24, no. 3, pp , Aug [12] J. A. A. Smith, F. German, and B. Pate, Calculation of site attenuation from antenna factors, IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat.,vol.EMC-24, no. 3, pp , Aug [13] W. Joseph and L. Martens, An improved method to determine the antenna factor, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 54, no. 1, pp , Feb [14], A new antenna calibration method and a selection of a measurement probe with minimal disturbance and sufficient sensitivity for electromagnetic exposure measurements around wireless base stations, in 27th Triennial General Assembly of the Int. Union of Radio Science, Maastricht, The Netherlands, Aug. 2002, Paper [15] R. Yagüe, A. Ibars, and L. Martinez, Analysis and reduction of the distortions induced by time-domain filtering techniques in network analyzers, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 47, no. 4, pp , Aug [16] E. Nicolas, D. Lautru, M. F. Wong, and J. Wiart, Specific absorption rate assessments based on a selective isotropic measuring system for electromagnetic fields, IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 50, no. 2, pp , Apr [17] C. Olivier and L. Martens, A practical method for compliance testing of base stations for mobile communications with exposure limits, in Proc. IEEE Int. AP-S Symp., Boston, Jul. 2001, pp [18], Measurements of exposure to electromagnetic radiation around GSM base stations in Belgium, in 23rd Ann. Meeting Bioelectromagnetics Soc., St. Paul, MN, Jun. 2001, pp [19] G. Neubauer, W. Giczi, and G. Schmid, An optimized method to determine exposure due to GSM base stations applied in the city of Salzburg, in 24rd Ann. Meeting Bioelectromagnetics Soc., Quebec, Canada, Jun. 2002, pp [20] Development of procedures for the assessment of exposure to electromagnetic near-fields from telecommunications equipment, INTEC Ghent University, Switzerland, Belgium, Tech. Rep., Jul [21] M. G. Douglas, M. Y. Kanda, and C. Chou, Post-processing errors in peak spatial-average SAR measurements of wireless handsets, in 25th Ann. Meeting Bioelectromagnetics Soc., Maui, HI: Wailea, Jun. 2003, pp [22] M. Y. Kanda, M. Ballen, M. G. Douglas, A. Gessner, and C. Chou, Fast SAR determination of gram-averaged SAR from 2-D coarse scans, in 25th Ann. Meeting Bioelectromagnetics Soc., Maui, HI: Wailea, Jun. 2003, pp [23] N. Stevens, W. Bracke, and L. Martens, Study of interpolation and extrapolation techniques for SAR measurements, in Proc. XXVIIth General Assembly Int. Union of Radio Science, Maastricht, The Netherlands, Aug. 2002, p. KA.P.8. [24] Y. Qishan, O. P. Gandhi, M. Aronsson, and D. Wu, An automated SAR measurement system for compliance testing of personal wireless devices, IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 41, no. 3, pp , Aug [25] R. Cicchetti and A. Faraone, Estimation of the peak power density in the vicinity of cellular and radio base station antennas, IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 46, no. 2, pp , May Wout Joseph was born in Ostend, Belgium, in He received the M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from Ghent University, Belgium, in 2000 and 2005, respectively. From September 2000 to March 2005, he was a Research Assistant at the Department of Information Technology (INTEC) of the same university. During this period, his scientific work was focused on electromagnetic exposure assessment. His research work dealt with measuring and modelling of electromagnetic fields around base stations for mobile communications related to the health effects of the exposure to electromagnetic radiation. Since April 2005, he is Postdoctoral Researcher for IBBT-Ugent/INTEC (Interdisciplinary Institute for BroadBand Technology), and his interests are electromagnetic field measurements, propagation for wireless communication systems, antennas, and calibration. Luc Martens (M 92) was born in Ghent, Belgium, in He received the M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from Ghent University, Belgium, in 1986 and 1990, respectively. From September 1986 to December 1990, he was a Research Assistant at the Department of Information Technology (INTEC) of the same university. During this period, his scientific work was focused on the physical aspects of hyperthermic cancer therapy. His research work dealt with electromagnetic and thermal modelling and with the development of measurement systems for that application. Since January 1991, he is a member of the permanent staff of the Interuniversity MicroElectronics Centre (IMEC), Ghent, and is responsible for the research on experimental characterization of the physical layer of telecommunication systems at INTEC. His group also studies topics related to the health effects of wireless communication devices. Since April 1993, he is Professor of Electrical Applications of Electromagnetism at the University of Gent.